highland145
Lifer
- Oct 12, 2009
- 43,973
- 6,340
- 136
FYI: Look at the media corp giving.
http://contexts.org/socimages/2009/09/27/partisan-political-contributions-by-u-s-companies/
FYI: Look at the media corp giving.
http://contexts.org/socimages/2009/09/27/partisan-political-contributions-by-u-s-companies/
Blackjack200
Lifer
- May 28, 2007
- 15,995
- 1,688
- 126
I don't see their interests diverging much from domestic corps. Maybe on trade issues etc., but most of the really big corps have already gotten around those or build their business models around them in some way.
No, the court further created a right - legislating from the bench - that's not in the constitutions that prohibits the people from voting limitations onto the artificial legal entities of corporations.
It furthers the lie that corproations are "people", giving them immunity from the power of democracy, from the people, for the most corrupt of reasons.
This sort of comes full circle. The phony right the, er, right has made up is rooted in saying corporations are people for purposes of the 14th amendment's equal protection clause.
That clause was needed in response to the enslavement of people.
Now, the American people are facing a sort of enslavement, as 'their' country becomes the country of the corporatocracy, from this ruling.
It's appropriate to repeat the quote, "the politicians have to LOOK goot to voters and DO good for donors."
That saying is exactly what this is about - the American people being 'marketed to' and 'sold' the messages by the people really in charge, who run the government to DO good for them.
Our country began as a fight against the excesses of the world's first global corporation - the East India company owned by England's nobility - and now has just put the corpration in charge.
That clause was needed in response to the enslavement of people.
Now, the American people are facing a sort of enslavement, as 'their' country becomes the country of the corporatocracy, from this ruling.
It's appropriate to repeat the quote, "the politicians have to LOOK goot to voters and DO good for donors."
That saying is exactly what this is about - the American people being 'marketed to' and 'sold' the messages by the people really in charge, who run the government to DO good for them.
Our country began as a fight against the excesses of the world's first global corporation - the East India company owned by England's nobility - and now has just put the corpration in charge.
A victory for free speech, both for the "Right" (Corporations) and the "Left" (Labor Unions).
Face it, the argument of 'your voice is meaningless now' is complete bullshit.
1. You have always been 1 in ~200,000,000 people able to vote. Your voice was already meaningless.
2. Spending money != getting votes, not directly anyway. Corporations and labor unions still cannot vote.
3. IF you firmly believe that increased spending will change the outcome of a vote, then your real complaint should be with your weak-minded peers who allow any lie they hear on TV to influence their thinking. Guns don't kill people, weak-willed people do. Spending doesn't elect politicians, weak-minded idiots who can't be bothered to form an intelligent opinion do.
4. TV commercials will go up and become unbearable, but if you don't have a DVR with 30-second skip that's your own fault.
Face it, the argument of 'your voice is meaningless now' is complete bullshit.
1. You have always been 1 in ~200,000,000 people able to vote. Your voice was already meaningless.
2. Spending money != getting votes, not directly anyway. Corporations and labor unions still cannot vote.
3. IF you firmly believe that increased spending will change the outcome of a vote, then your real complaint should be with your weak-minded peers who allow any lie they hear on TV to influence their thinking. Guns don't kill people, weak-willed people do. Spending doesn't elect politicians, weak-minded idiots who can't be bothered to form an intelligent opinion do.
4. TV commercials will go up and become unbearable, but if you don't have a DVR with 30-second skip that's your own fault.
We should just go full NASCAR in Congress, "I'd like to thank everyone on the Skoal Tobacco Legislation Committee for putting together the team necessary to legalize dip for minors, Skoal the smooth satisfying chew, now in bubble gum flavor".
My take on this is very simple, if corporations want to take advantage of the rights of individual citizens then they need to give up the protections that being a corporation grants them. You can't have it both ways.
My take on this is very simple, if corporations want to take advantage of the rights of individual citizens then they need to give up the protections that being a corporation grants them. You can't have it both ways.
So, those who voted in favor of preserving rights granted under the Constitution are in fact trashing it?
Did some reading and I am more in favor of the Supreme Court decision now.
Just as a reminder, the first amendment:
Is not just about speech, but also assembly and petitioning the government about grievances.
I have to ask some questions, because I honestly don't see how this is not free speech limiting.
If you would Craig, could you identify in the following scenarios, when it stops being speech and starts being "not speech?" For simplicities sake, I believe in passing X bill, and all the following are examples of me promoting X bill.
I give a speech on a street corner.
I write pamphlets by hand, which requires a small amount of money for paper and ink. Does it stop being speech if I spend any money?
I buy a printer and print more pamphlets, more money spent. Does the amount of money spent matter?
I pay a print shop to print even more pamphlets, yet more money. Does it matter if I pay someone to help me promote my idea?
I pay someone to help me write a more convincing pamphlet? Does it matter if I pay someone to write the words, even if it is my beliefs?
A friend contributes to my purchase of pamphlets. is it only my speech, or does his support make it also his speech, does the combined support make it "not speech?"
Two friends contribute to my purchase. Does the number of contributers make it less "free speech?"
A neighborhood book club contributes. Does it matter if the other people who support me work together as a group?
A small indepent business owner contributes. Does it matter if the support comes from a person who is also a business owner?
A small partnership contributes. Does it matter if the business is owned by more than one person?
The board of a small corporation contributes. If everyone in a corporation donated independently, is it speech?
The small coporation contributes. If everyone in a corporation works together as a group to support me, is it not speech for them?
A regional company helps me fund my pamphlet. Does it stop being the speech of the members of the corporation if the corporation is a bit bigger?
Exxon mobil helps me fund my pamphlet. How about if the corp is huge and "evil."
I purchase a tv ad. Does the medium matter?
I donate the money I was going to use to a political group. Does it matter if I give my resources to allow someone else to speak, does it stop being speech if I do not do it myself?
---------
At what point does it stop being my speech when I work together with other people? Corporations do not think, do not act, have no beliefs, and no idealogy of their own. They are nothing but a group of people working together in their own common interest. When I refer to corporation, I mean the owners and management. I do not consider the employees to be members of the corporation because they do not have direct input in the decision making.
Actually the Supreme Court ruling on the Constitutionality of a law is something the Supreme Court came up with on its own. It isn't in the Constitution.
/scurries away
My prediction for the next major event in the ascension of the corporotocracy:
The scope of government itself will be limited somehow, as much as possible within gthe constitution as defined by right-wing radicals.
It will be welcomed to declare national theme months and to run the machinery, but it will be prohibited from the people interfering with the corporations' profits.
It's a little ways away, but started in the free traqde agreements.
"The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation."
--
--
So, those who voted in favor of preserving rights granted under the Constitution are in fact trashing it?
Read my other posts for how this was the creaqtion of rights not in the constiution for allowing a few to destroy the democracy for the people.
The issue isn't what is speech. The issue is who has the right to not be told by the people their participation in our elections is limited.
We prohibit foreigners from contributing, because we see this as a corrupting influence - the candidates take money from foreigners and start to represent them over their constituents.
But we let corporations, who have interests just as much at odds with the public interst, do exactly that - and they have very deep pockets capable of 'taking over' the politician and thereby the government.
Indeed we have allowed the role of money to be so large it's said politicians NEED these donations, short of being independantly wealthy, to get elected - money far more powerful than 'speech'.
Real 'free speech' is when citizens in good faith exchange views and decide their positions or who to vote for.
A corporation who has a very narrow interst in its own profit, by law required NOT to consider the public good, is not having a conversation about the right policy. It's paying vast sums to create and distribute propaganda for that narrow interest aimed specifically at PREVENTING the free speech of citizens from deciding not to take its side, and we know the money is very powerful.
Here, when the contributions are excessive because your 'friend' gives you 50 times the budget of your opponent to 'buy the election'.
If he's spending his own money, fine. Business money, IMO, is not the same.
We prohibit foreigners from contributing, because we see this as a corrupting influence - the candidates take money from foreigners and start to represent them over their constituents.
But we let corporations, who have interests just as much at odds with the public interst, do exactly that - and they have very deep pockets capable of 'taking over' the politician and thereby the government.
Indeed we have allowed the role of money to be so large it's said politicians NEED these donations, short of being independantly wealthy, to get elected - money far more powerful than 'speech'.
Real 'free speech' is when citizens in good faith exchange views and decide their positions or who to vote for.
A corporation who has a very narrow interst in its own profit, by law required NOT to consider the public good, is not having a conversation about the right policy. It's paying vast sums to create and distribute propaganda for that narrow interest aimed specifically at PREVENTING the free speech of citizens from deciding not to take its side, and we know the money is very powerful.
Here, when the contributions are excessive because your 'friend' gives you 50 times the budget of your opponent to 'buy the election'.
If he's spending his own money, fine. Business money, IMO, is not the same.
I missed the part where money became speech.
I use money to print pamphlets, should I not be allowed to promote ideals I spent money on? Is it not speech if I bought a printer? If those two are protected by the first amendment, why can't I give the same money to the NRA for them to make pamphlets?
kage69
Lifer
- Jul 17, 2003
- 31,729
- 48,547
- 136
That is the very point I've been arguing with of few of my "business above all else" colleagues, and they always have to resort to the "well the corporations fuel this country!" bullshit. When did business entities become more important than people and people's rights?
With the exceptions of Scalia and Alito, I'm very surprised that the votes went that way.
As an previous poster put it so well, this is indeed more of the "Russification" of America. The founding fathers would be so proud.
I'm just saying that if you are going to advocate a plain text reading of the Constitution then you can't nitpick parts. It's ironic that the biggest case involving judicial activism is defended by individuals who despise judicial activism.
So let me be clear here, the government cannot stop me from speaking, but the government can stop me from spreading an idea via a pamphlet just because of how much money has been spent to make the pamphlets? Is there an upper limit on how much money I could spend on a pamphlet to spread an idea, or is $1 too much? If there is a limit, can I go around that limit and get the exact same pamphlet through my own labor, (no actual $$$ involved) and produce the exact same pamphlet and be legal?
Why is business money different than personal money?
Do we require citizens to consider the public good? How are they preventing speech? Of course money is powerful, but your problem is not with money, but with what it buys, ads. Would you be ok with advertisements equivalent to what corps buy now, if somehow people decide to give them for free, with no money involved?
In corporations it is different, the owners all own a portion of the corp. They own that portion and their liability is limited to that portion. However, the portion that they own, is theirs. Why can't they use that portion just because they have it in a limited liability corp? Why is that portion of a persons resources less acceptable than a persons own savings account?
You seem to have a very weird concept of "money." Money is a medium of exchange. When I do work, I am payed in money, I then turn that money in for things like food. In reality I got food for my work, money just allowed me to make the exchange between multiple parties more efficient. Anything I can buy, I could technically make myself or with the help of others with no money involved. When I donate money, in essence I donate a portion of my work. Only, it is usually more efficient for me to do my normal job, and donate money for a sign maker then it is for me to make signs by hand.
Why is business money different than personal money?
Do we require citizens to consider the public good? How are they preventing speech? Of course money is powerful, but your problem is not with money, but with what it buys, ads. Would you be ok with advertisements equivalent to what corps buy now, if somehow people decide to give them for free, with no money involved?
What if he donated his time, and we ended up through our own labor with 50 times the equivalent campaigning through our own labor, with no money. Is it not free speech just because we used money rather than our own arms?
Maybe my mind is fuzzy, but I seem to recall that for a personal business owner, organized as a sole proprietor, there is no difference between his money and business money. They are legally one and the same.
In corporations it is different, the owners all own a portion of the corp. They own that portion and their liability is limited to that portion. However, the portion that they own, is theirs. Why can't they use that portion just because they have it in a limited liability corp? Why is that portion of a persons resources less acceptable than a persons own savings account?
You seem to have a very weird concept of "money." Money is a medium of exchange. When I do work, I am payed in money, I then turn that money in for things like food. In reality I got food for my work, money just allowed me to make the exchange between multiple parties more efficient. Anything I can buy, I could technically make myself or with the help of others with no money involved. When I donate money, in essence I donate a portion of my work. Only, it is usually more efficient for me to do my normal job, and donate money for a sign maker then it is for me to make signs by hand.
Because companies shouldn't be influencing elections, that's for American citizens to do. Companies have enough influence on our elected officials already by lobbying.
This anti-corporation stance that has reared its head by certain individuals in this thread is interesting. If people want to collectively establish themselves to accomplish something, why be against it? And, one person still retains individual rights, but twelve people collectively put together do not?
The mere truth is that there are some corporations that people do not like and this provides the foundation for a convoluted perception that the corporation in question yields incredible power in manipulating public opinion.
Is that fear unfounded? Not always, but freedoms come with the cost that everyone gets to participate.
The mere truth is that there are some corporations that people do not like and this provides the foundation for a convoluted perception that the corporation in question yields incredible power in manipulating public opinion.
Is that fear unfounded? Not always, but freedoms come with the cost that everyone gets to participate.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter